How would you design a course at an internment facility for 110 shooters?

[John_Cullum]

Actually I think it is the 110 shooter who is clueless as to what his problems are, but that's for another website

[Garland Bayley]

Actually I think it is the 110 shooter who is clueless as to what his problems are, but that's for another website

John,

I would guess that is probably more generally true than a lot of what has been said here. Of course the old folks know exactly what their problem is.

[John_Cullum]

GB

Just let me be clear, if they are out there playing golf in their 80's, more power to them, and I'll do whatever I can to show them a good time

[John Kavanaugh]

To answer the question posed in the title to this thread let's just say that Baxter Spann doesn't seem to know how to, whereas Gil Hanse does. If I recall correctly, even John K liked Gil's course that could be an internment facility for 110 shooters.

Garland,

I've never played a BS course and I do enjoy Rustic Canyon but feel that it is way too hard for this situation.  If you could be so kind...Could you explain why you have problems breaking a hundred?  I think you might be able to get me over to your side if I would learn why someone would play so poorly.  Is it a choice?

[Peter Pallotta]

The trouble with this line of discussion, it seems to me, is that there are just as many ways to shoot 110 as there are to shoot 80, and just as many reasons for both; it's hard enough to generalize in the abstract, but even harder to generalize in the context of designing a course aimed at the ‘upper end’ of the market.

I was only half-kidding in my first post. A small child could only carry so many rocks, and with his dog running wild and him chasing it, he wouldn't likely drop the rocks in big clusters. The 'random' bunkering that would result would mean that a decent player would encounter some strategically significant hazards, as well as some that might be only psychologically significant in a strategic sense; but would also result in bunkers that are, say, 100 yards of the tee, or 70 yards from the green -- in other words, in bunkers that would prove to add challenge and be strategically significant to the 110 shooter independent of where he’d found/put himself,  or of the reasons why.  

And, the fact that the small child could only carry a limited number of rocks would mean that, vis-a-vis the amount of fairway space still left bunkerless, there'd be a goodly amount of room for error.

Peter  

[George Pazin]

If you could be so kind...Could you explain why you have problems breaking a hundred?  I think you might be able to get me over to your side if I would learn why someone would play so poorly.  Is it a choice?

Can't speak for Garland, but I can for myself.

Lately, it's been a real struggle for me to break 100 on any course.

Why?

I didn't start playing till I was about 30, been playing 10 years, and with the exception of one good summer, I've never been able to play more than once or twice a month. With a rebuilt knee and a 3 year old and other life commitments, I can't find much time to get to the range, either. Lately I'm lucky to get out 3 or 4 times a year, and I don't have the past base to be able to do this and still play well.

I still love to play, even though I rarely do. I'd guess I have all the talent necessary to shoot in the 80s on a regular basis, if I could ever find the time to practice and play. I hit plenty of good shots when I do get out, I just hit plenty of disastrous ones as well, which tend to lead to many penalty shots and blow-up holes. Most people I've played with are surprised at the final number I come up with after a round, but I do count every stroke and generally play by the rules (with the primary exception of not going back to the tee after losing an unexpected tee shot).

And, lest anyone think I'm complaining, I'm not, I know I have different priorities than most on here. I've accepted it, and I've accepted that I won't get better till I find the time to do so.

But that doesn't mean I don't love to play, and it sure doesn't mean I can't appreciate good architecture, and know the difference between good and bad, accomodating and not.

As to the original question, something like The Rawls Course suits me just fine. Lots of entertaining shots, few opportunities for lost balls. I could shoot the occasional decent round, I could also shoot a high number on any given hole.

Conversely, a course like Black Mesa, while providing many options for the better golfer, is flat out death for the occasional player like me.

Doesn't mean either is better or worse, it just means I have a strong preference for one of them.

Guess that's a long way of saying it is sometimes a choice, to be a 100 golfer.

[Garland Bayley]

To answer the question posed in the title to this thread let's just say that Baxter Spann doesn't seem to know how to, whereas Gil Hanse does. If I recall correctly, even John K liked Gil's course that could be an internment facility for 110 shooters.

Garland,

I've never played a BS course and I do enjoy Rustic Canyon but feel that it is way too hard for this situation.  If you could be so kind...Could you explain why you have problems breaking a hundred?  I think you might be able to get me over to your side if I would learn why someone would play so poorly.  Is it a choice?

John,

Some of it has been hinted at. Grounders and sky balls, bladed chips and pitches, and the inverse (is it chilly dipped?) chips and pitches. The occasional slice or hook for no known reason. Why, as Mr. Cullum conjectured above, I am clueless. Possibilities: tension (I can't hit a decent shot in front of the drink cart girl). Attention deficit disorder (often I feel I have zoned out in the middle of my swing). Terribly inconsistent tempo (in basketball inconsistent tempo was a good thing). Desire to give it a rip (see tempo problems). Weak ankles from severe ankle sprains give me an unstable foundation? 20+ years away from the game after shooting low 80s in my 20s (I feel like I am relearning my swing at the beginning of each weekend).

Most everyone who sees me swing a golf club can not believe I don't shoot much better than I do.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Conversely, a course like Black Mesa, while providing many options for the better golfer, is flat out death for the occasional player like me.
...

I don't remember the exact number, but I shot something very close to 110 at Black Mesa. A few days later I shot 85 at Rustic Canyon. I remember that number very well. It was my best in 25+ years.
 

[Doug Ralston]

John;

As you well know, I know 110 shooters, 110 shooters are friends of mine, and Mister, they like fun challenges just like 70 shooters, they just do not succed near as often!

A long drop over water is greated with glee, even if a few balls drown before one makes it across. A 'cape' hole looks like something they MIGHT do. As for tough greens, which bad golfer doesn't have a few stories of 'snakes' they made to save bogey?

They mostly [not all] need shorter tees available so the features are withing their reach. They do NOT need tees in front of features where they feel they have missed the true character of the course.

Most people I know who are lousy golfers, scorewise, are fanatic golf lovers. How do I know? Because 110 or 120 does not keep them off. They simply have smaller dreams, like shooting under 100, or making it across that chasm on their drive etc. And of course enjoying a beautiful course.

Doug

[Mike_Cirba]

It's all about offering CHOICE, whether the player is scratch or a 24.  It's called freedom and I'm sick of people who should know better running it down on here.  

If you take away choice, you have communism, or at least totalitarianism, and we know how drab, grey, lifeless, motivationless, unproductive, and unworkable that is.  

Imagine an army of lifeless, vacant-eyed, plaid-pants-wearing drones marching in step down the center-lines of every course from Bar Harbor to Bimini and back, and then think about the architecture we're creating that holds that up as some type of ideal....where the centerline of any hole is the actual and only target for any shot and the whole idea of the game becomes to zip it down that centerline with as much force and distance as you can muster, irrespective of age, health, experience, or intelligence.  Why would one need to leave the driving range to score the game?  Instead, one could just stand there and hit to various targets, and get points depending on how close one comes, or how far they can launch it.  Of course, we could also find a nearby piece of flat astroturf stimping at 15 that could be used to approximate putting and chipping and before we know it, we could play the entire game in a 350 yard by 50 yard bowling alley.

Shhh...don't let the PGA or USGA in on it or they may decide to add a roof for indoor play.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Garland,

Thanks for the explanation.  I've got to say that you post younger than your age.  As for the other C noters who have posted on this thread please note that I understand why you enjoy playing the same courses I do.  I tried to set this thread up to be an exercise in discussing a design that would be built for only those who go yard in score.  I still believe that courses today would be different if everyone chose to play on your level.  Maybe not.

[John Kavanaugh]

Cirba,

Flip flopping posts to the back page is a two stroke penalty.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Thanks for the explanation.  I've got to say that you post younger than your age.  As for the other C noters who have posted on this thread please note that I understand why you enjoy playing the same courses I do.  I tried to set this thread up to be an exercise in discussing a design that would be built for only those who go yard in score.  I still believe that courses today would be different if everyone chose to play on your level.  Maybe not.

I don't choose to play on my level. I choose to play at Tiger Woods level. Unfortunately in life you don't get everything you choose.

If everyone played at my level, I believe courses would look a lot more like Alister MacKenzie courses than TPC courses.

[Karl Bernetich]

tongue-in-cheek reply ...

[John Kavanaugh]

tongue-in-cheek reply ...

Karl...What is your point?

[Chris Cupit]

If you had a membership completely composed of fine people and passionate golfers who for whatever reason averaged 110 every time they play,

I'd find another line of work  (Sorry Doug, couldn't resist).

[Bob_Huntley]

The problem with 110 shooters is not being able to hit a shot to carry to the fairway. Have an open fairway ahead and somehow or other a cunning sclaff will propel the ball forward, allowing a third shot to the green on a par four.

What is amazing to me is that the young and strong whippersnappers in our group think that their current prowess is forever. Forget it, age and infirmity will catch up with you and a 110 score thirty or forty years down the road, might well give you great pleasure.

Bob

[Pete Lavallee]

Forget it, age and infirmity will catch up with you and a 110 score thirty or forty years down the road, might well give you great pleasure.

Bob

Well said Bob. Shivas has countered for years tha the "D" player mapped out in the strategic archiecture books of the 1920's doesn't exist. But there is  golfer, confident that he can tack his way around the course with willy planned 175 yard shots; and his name is Grandad! Lets not take his thrill away fom him in his formative years.

In answer to JakaB's original question, I'de install bunkers where the terrain calls out for them. A wise designer will route the course such that these opportunities fall in locations that will be strategic for all classes of golfers.

[Garland Bayley]

...
In answer to JakaB's original question, I'de install bunkers where the terrain calls out for them. A wise designer will route the course such that these opportunities fall in locations that will be strategic for all classes of golfers.

This is very much like Tom Doak described doing it when I at one time suggested using a random number generator to place them throughout the course.

[Mike_Cirba]

tongue-in-cheek reply ...

Karl,

Keep working on it.

Now you just have to add some "progressive discipline", with increasing cuts of rough each 5 yards from the ultimate target...the holy-of-holies center line.

Oh, except for the part 20 yards off line where the gallery tramps it down.